XPost: alt.politics.conservative, alt.politics.republicans, alt.
olitics.usa.republican
XPost: alt.politics.usa
From: Barry@Freed.ZOG
I fixed the subject line for you.
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Sarah Austin wrote:
>PAINTING A BULL'S EYE ON NEW YORK CITY
>
>By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
>
>Published on DickMorris.com on November 14, 2009
>
>President Obama's decision to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in
>New York City along with four others accused of helping destroy the
>World Trade Center and attack the Pentagon on 9-11 paints a bulls-eye
>for terrorists right on New York City, their favorite target. Now
>Obama has identified where the terrorists should focus their energies -
>on New York City.
>
>His decision to bow to political correctness and not to try Mohammed at
>a secure military base and to try him in a civilian court, according
>him all the rights of an American citizen, raises important questions:
>
>Most importantly, is the admissible evidence against Mohammed damning
>enough to secure a conviction? The evidentiary requirements protecting
>an American citizen on trial are far stricter than those which would
>apply to an enemy combatant before a military tribunal. We already
>watched how the twentieth hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui escaped the
>death penalty because the evidence the government could use against him
>in a civilian criminal court was limited by his civil liberties. As a
>result, the data from his computer, which had not been seized pursuant
>to the Fourth Amendment, could not be entered into evidence against
>him. Failing such evidence, the feds had to settle for a life
>sentence.
>
>
>Since much of the evidence against Mohammed was gathered through
>interrogations before which he may not have been read his Miranda
>rights and during which he may have been water-boarded, one wonders how
>much of his statement that he was the mastermind of 9-11 is going to be
>admissible. It could be that he will use the very constitution of the
>very government he seeks to destroy to protect himself from the death
>penalty or even life in prison.
>
>The decision to try him in a civilian court also confronts the
>Department of Justice with a difficult decision on how much of the
>evidence against Mohammed should be aired publicly. Our anti-terror
>investigations depend on secrecy and the FBI and Homeland Security
>agents may not relish having their methods publicized in open court.
>There is even the possibility that there will be a global backlash in
>favor of Mohammed as his defense lawyer - paid for by the American
>taxpayer - will make him appear to be the victim of over-zealous
>investigators and prosecutors rather than the perpetrator of one of the
>greatest mass murders in history.
>
>In any event, President Obama is affording the terrorists exactly what
>they wanted in the first place - a global stage right near New York's
>theater district. The very goal of terrorism is to attract world-wide
>attention and, by trying Mohammed in a civilian court in the middle of
>New York City, President Obama is giving them the stage they want on
>which to articulate their perceived grievances.
>
>Finally, there is the disturbing question of what will happen if
>Mohammed and/or his some of his confreres are found to be not guilty.
>Where will they be released? Will they walk out of the courtroom free
>to prowl the streets of New York, their transportation having been paid
>courtesy of the taxpayers? Will they be flown to Afghanistan to resume
>their plots against our government and our people, again at taxpayer
>expense?
>
>What Obama should have done was to try Mohammed before a military
>tribunal, without the full rights of an American citizen (which, of
>course, he is not) and, after a guilty verdict, executed him. But this
>president bows before political correctness above all else and he may
>just have done Mohammed and al Qaeda a big, big favor.
>
The Juwes are
the men that
Will not
be Blamed
for nothing
-W.W. Gull
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
